The TSA And The First Amendment: They Don't Think Much Of That One, Either
The airport Constitution crumplers have their thuggish ways laid bare in a moving and important blog item by Philip Weber at TSANewsBlog, starting with Judge Rees' decision that John Brennan, who dropped his drawers and the rest of his clothes, was protected by the First Amendment right to free speech:
Brennan was doing one of the most decent things imaginable: he was protesting what he saw as an overreach by his government. He was having a "pen(is) is mightier than the sword" moment. He was enjoying that most quintessentially American of rights: the right to free expression.And that's what really torqued the TSA. Standing in line for their nudie scanner, Brennan mocked them. When they began to order him around, he pulled down his pants in protest. He could have flipped them the bird or called them jackbooted thugs. He could have impugned the purity of the screener's mother. But instead, John Brennan chose to stand quietly showing he had nothing to hide.
You can almost hear the screams of TSAnguish as Brennan gathered up his modesty, tossed it in a trash bin, and set it on fire rather than let them take it from him.
Let's set aside for a moment the question of whether the TSA violates your Fourth Amendment right against unwarranted search and seizure when it looks at you with its magic electro-depantsing machine. Instead consider that the TSA is no fan of the First Amendment either.
The TSA has been accused in the past of cautioning bloggers against writing negative stories about the agency, and they have admitted to keeping one of their harshest critics, Bruce Schneier, from testifying before Congress. They handcuffed and detained college student Aaron Tobey for passing through a checkpoint with the Fourth Amendment written on his chest (Tobey sued; his 4th Amendment claim was thrown out, but the judge allowed his claims on 1st Amendment and unlawful detention grounds to go forward).
At most, TSA agents should have said to John Brennan, "Okay, we get it, you think that current security procedures are overly invasive. We hear that a lot. Here's the phone number for your Congressman's office."
But they didn't.
They had him arrested.
Because they were angry.
Because John Brennan mocked them.
That's why it's too early to celebrate Brennan's acquittal. He was cleared of indecency charges in Multnomah County Circuit Court, but what has not been widely reported is that the TSA is still conducting its own federal investigation to determine if Brennan interfered with the screening process.
And can you guess who's conducting that investigation? Not an independent prosecutor. Not a court. Not a mediator. Not an impartial third party. The TSA will determine, in its sole discretion, if John Brennan wronged them.
A very important point at the end of the piece:
The Supreme Court has long held that Americans are free to travel anywhere they like, at least inside the country (places like Cuba are another matter). It is a right so fundamental, like eating and breathing, that it's not even included in the Constitution (though it was specifically enumerated in the Articles of Confederation). As recently as 2006, the 9th Circuit, which includes Brennan's home city of Portland, reiterated that right. What the 9th Circuit didn't say is that Americans have a right to fly, although 49 USC Section 40103 guarantees citizens the "public right of transit through navigable airspace."Did John Brennan win a Pyrrhic victory in court last week? Will the TSA try to deny him his fundamental right to travel -- and thereby his livelihood -- because he challenged them?
In some good news for rights-lovers, via Gateway Pundit, the Supreme Court told the EPA that it's not above the law in a case I blogged about here.







We have all heard the phrase"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." Let me suggest that that pales before the fury of a bittibrained bureauorat/thug who has been treated with a well deserved contempt.
BarSinister at July 24, 2012 7:38 AM
I'm confused by the article about the ruling. What does the ruling require the EPA to do? Do the Sacketts get any relief? Maybe Volokh will have something.
Cousin Dave at July 24, 2012 9:37 AM
The EPA now has to defend their compliance orders in court, if so challenged. The Sacketts will now have their complaint heard in federal district court.
The EPA is not the final authority in such matters.
I R A Darth Aggie at July 24, 2012 10:31 AM
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/require-transportation-security-administration-follow-law/tffCTwDd
WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:
Require the Transportation Security Administration to Follow the Law!
In July 2011, a federal appeals court ruled that the Transportation Security Administration had to conduct a notice-and-comment rulemaking on its policy of using "Advanced Imaging Technology" for primary screening at airports. TSA was supposed to publish the policy in the Federal Register, take comments from the public, and justify its policy based on public input. The court told TSA to do all this "promptly." A year later, TSA has not even started that public process. Defying the court, the TSA has not satisfied public concerns about privacy, about costs and delays, security weaknesses, and the potential health effects of these machines. If the government is going to "body-scan" Americans at U.S. airports, President Obama should force the TSA to begin the public process the court ordered."
Steve Daniels at July 24, 2012 1:28 PM
If the TSA were to contact me about writing negative stories about the agency the first thing I would do is find a lawyer to make a daily call to me. He would also be filing 1st and 5th amendment motion against the TSA.
Jim P. at July 24, 2012 6:21 PM
The White House petitions are worthless. The petitions that reach the necessary number of signatures get brushed off with a slick response by a PR flack.
The only purpose of the petitions is to let people feel like they have taken action. Afterwards, the government hopes that they will go back to being good sheep, having expressed their opinion, as opposed to taking any sort of real action.
a_random_guy at July 24, 2012 10:47 PM
Leave a comment